Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
That "batshit" "newspaper columnist" was the US Ambassador to the UN...

Bolton was also up to his eyeballs in Iran-Contra, so he knows a bit about dealing directly with despots and terrorists.

Posted

Attack him all you want, what he's saying is still valid. I'm not going to debate the character of the author in lieu of the argument.

Posted
We'll see...
This is pretty much where I am. I have to admit to thinking only about the hostages being released when I wrote my initial response, but I don't think very highly of ambassadors -- they're mostly power-drunks on boondoggles -- and I also didn't see a whole lot of validation to what he wrote -- it's mostly speculation (batshit or otherwise). I mean, I see how he could have a point, but it's not like we made a press release saying "hey, they're legitimate now". It's like a hostage negotiator going in to a hostage negotiation and coming out with the hostages. I stand by, "win".
Posted

The problem comes if it sets a precedent, that other countries start expecting similar treatment. We have a similar situation in iran with the "hikers", where we are in a similar political impasse. If this raises the level it takes to get hostages freed, it's a problem. It's more painting us into a corner diplomatically by weakening our hand. We can't hold the needs of the country over the needs of reporters who knew what they were getting into when they went to north korea. It's either Clinton doing an ill advised but generous favor for his friend, or it's our country setting precedents diplomatically that can cause real long term weakening. Only time will tell which it was.

Posted

You may not like it, but when what he wants is global legitimacy, then recognition is one of the few things we can do to influence him. He's already demonstrated he doesn't care for the welfare of his country.

Posted
It's an op-ed piece, and all diplomacy is impacted by speculation, supposition and sanctimonious platitudes, especially when dealing with batshit dictators (north korea not being the only one we have to deal with).

I think Clinton put his friendship with Al Gore over the best interest of the country, and Obama was just going along because it was in line with what he campaigned on. We'll see long term if it has any impact.

A good op-ed piece still needs to be based upon facts. Taking a picture and writing a nice story about it is fine for five-year olds but not for adults in a newspaper. Especially when the story is used to make a political statement, which is what it was about, not about the correctness of the diplomacy. I expected the story to be written as it was from Bolton, my real problem is that the Washington Post decided to publish it. True or not, that lends it an air of credibility it does not deserve.

Now granted the direction of the story is contrary to my political longitude but if it had been written from the opposite perspective saying it was the best thing since Madeleine Albright, and used only the facts in this story, I would have the same problem with it.

Plus there are always (and should be IMO) backdoor talks going on, even with batshit dictators, all the time. Just usually not this public.

Lastly, the only way to play a megolomaniac is to make them think they are in charge of what is going on.

Posted
I don't like the idea that talking with anyone weakens our "position".

I say put the crazy SOB up on a pedestal.

I completely agree that he's batshit crazy, and I've been around long enough to see that the brighter these wingnuts shine, the faster the crazy bastards burn out. It's when they're ignored and treated as unimportant that they fester for decades.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.